The Energy Revolution has begun and will change your lifestyle

Welcome to the Energy Blog

The Energy Blog is where all topics relating to The Energy Revolution are presented. Increasingly, expensive oil, coal and global warming are causing an energy revolution by requiring fossil fuels to be supplemented by alternative energy sources and by requiring changes in lifestyle. Please contact me with your comments and questions. Further Information about me can be found HERE.

Statistics

October 18, 2007

Maize for Biofuels: The Ultimate Energy Crop

According to research conducted by Fred Below at the University of Illinois (U of I), maize may prove to be the ultimate U.S. biofuels crop. This comes at somewhat of a surprise, because U of I has been studying and advocating Miscanthus for some time.

The chief advantage of maize, when grown in the Midwest, is that it requires much less nitrogen fertilizer input than corn because it does not produce any ears. The sugar is in the stalks, not in the ears and is in the form of sucrose, fructose and glucose.

This differs from conventional corn and other crops being grown for biofuels in that the starch found in corn grain and the cellulose in switchgrass, corn stover and other biofuel crops must be treated with enzymes to convert them into sugars that can be then fermented into alcohols such as ethanol.

It also is easier for farmers to integrate into their current operations than some other dedicated energy crops because it can be easily rotated with corn or soybeans, and can be planted, cultivated and harvested with the same equipment U.S. farmers already have. Finally, tropical maize stalks are believed to require less processing than corn grain, corn stover, switchgrass, Miscanthus giganteus and the scores of other plants now being studied for biofuel production.

"Corn is a short-day plant, so when we grow tropical maize here in the Midwest the long summer days delay flowering, which causes the plant to grow very tall and produce few or no ears," says Below. Without ears, these plants concentrate sugars in their stalks, he adds. Those sugars could have a dramatic affect on Midwestern production of ethanol and other biofuels.

According to Below, "Midwestern-grown tropical maize easily grows 14 or 15 feet tall compared to the 7-1/2 feet height that is average for conventional hybrid corn. It's all in these tall stalks." Below explains. "In our early trials, we are finding that these plants build up to a level of 25 percent or higher of sugar in their stalks.

In terms of biofuel production, tropical maize could be considered the 'Sugarcane of the Midwest,'" Below said. "The tropical maize we're growing here at the University of Illinois is very lush, very tall, and very full of sugar." He added that his early trials also show that tropical maize requires much less nitrogen fertilizer than conventional corn, and that the stalks actually accumulate more sugar when less nitrogen is available. Nitrogen fertilizer is one of major costs of growing corn.

Sugarcane produced in Brazil has the same attributes: it produces lots of sugar without a high requirement for nitrogen fertilizer, and this sugar can be fermented to alcohol without the middle steps required by high-starch and cellulosic crops. But sugarcane can't be grown in the Midwest.

"And growing tropical maize doesn't break the farmers' rotation. You can grow tropical maize for one year and then go back to conventional corn or soybeans in subsequent years," Below said. "Miscanthus, on the other hand, is thought to need a three-year growth cycle between initial planting and harvest and then your land is in Miscanthus. To return to planting corn or soybean necessitates removing the Miscanthus rhizomes."

The reduction in the use of nitrogen and enzymes certainly would have a significant effect on reducing the cost of ethanol. Also, there has to be some cellulose in maize, which if extracted, would further increase the yield. It sounds like it would be an easy transition to cellulosic ethanol when cost effective enzymes become available.

It sounds like their is a little friendly competition going on at U of I between the advocates of Miscanthus and Maize. Even if Miscanthus turns out to be better it has limitations today in that it cannot be propagated easily and the enzymes for cellulosic ethanol have not been proven to be economical yet.

This post is based on material furnished by the University of Illinois.

I've read somewhere that even if we use all land on earth for biofuel, it will produce only 10% of what we spend now.
Is it true ?
If yes, why we are wasting our time and resources on biofuel ? We do not have much time left.
On the other hand, amount of energy sun brings to earth every second, is more that humanity spends a YEAR!
We already have cheap mirror technology that has more than 30% efficiency. Shouldn't we use it on mass scale instead of going biofuel root ?

Maybe because plants only convert about 1% of the sunlight into plant material, while solar thermal is much more efficient, 30% efficient according to Verdi. Then there are losses during conversion of plant material into biofuel, and losses during combustion.

averagejoe: I already told why. Biofuels are very inefficient. So inefficient, that even if you use all available land you wll not be able to replace more than 10% of oil we use now.
Do not forget that fossil fuels were collected for billions and billions years. Now you are trying to do same thing every year, which is simply impossible.
So why bother ?
Cheap and working alternative is here - Thermo-solar power.

Verdi, why does efficiency have to be the highest consideration in the near term? The point of biofuels is to help augment our liquid fuels supply while we transition to PHEV's and EV's. I suppose we could implement a full scale coal to liquids program, if you would prefer. Internal combustion engines will be with us for at least the next twenty years. Solar energy is great, but how do you put it in your gas tank without using biofuels? The real question should be, are biofuels useful enough during the next twenty years, that the issue of biofuel efficiency should take a backseat for that time period. Another question we should ask is whether biofuels can effectively moderate price spikes in the retail liquid fuels market. In real life, theoretical efficiency sometimes has to be balanced against other considerations.

30% land efficient solar powerplants do not yet exist, first because of mandatory reflector spacing. In the case of troughs, the reflectors typically occupy one third of the land area. Packing the troughs closer is possible but then there's going to be mutual reflector blocking (shading). Ausra's design has solved most of this problem but even they can't nearly get full land coverage.

Then, there's the reflector efficiency, the best mirrors today are about 92% efficient, and they have to be washed regularly to remain above 90%. Cheaper mirrors are much less efficient.

Then there are also thermal losses in the system (usually higher with line focus systems), turbine efficiency (the other big loss factor), plant online factor, system losses, and storage losses if applicable.

I'd go with 10-15% total land efficiency.

And that's the efficiency of capturing the direct beam only, if you're really picky then the diffuse losses (diffuse light cannot be harvested by solar thermal plants) also have to be counted in. In a good desert location this will be minor though.

Biological plants also differ in geometric efficiency. High yield crops like Miscanthus grow mostly upwards rather than sideways, which is one of the things that makes them very land-efficient (= high yield per area).

Actually biomass is nature's way of storing energy. Maybe Verdi has heard of it? In the United States we call it food. I want to see Thermo-solar power do that.

“Cheap and working alternative is here - Thermo-solar power.” I do not know where Verdi lives but Thermo-solar power is not where I live and it it never will. What Verdi really means is that he want someone else to build the world's biggest eye sore someplace he does not live.

Plants are very nifty and making fiber. Maybe Verdi has heard of it? In the United States we call it wood and cotton. I want to see Thermo-solar power make lumber or clothing. Of course, the United States the waste biomass is the largest source of non-hydro renewable energy in the United States.

Ethanol, methanol, and direct gasification has been around longer than petroleum. If the same amount of research has gone into bio-refineries OPEC would never had formed to hold the world hostage. Furthermore, the United States can meet 100% of transportation 'needs' with biomass. Working in the city and living 50 miles away is not a need. Commuting more than 100 miles a day in a SUV with only the driver is a possibility based on cheap oil and very productive Americans.

The 10% figure is way off. That’s what biomass debunkers use to lowball our biomass potential. Each country is uniquely different, regarding what mix of energy it consumes, how much fuel it consumes, what processes it uses, its quantity and quality of land, water and fertilizer resources, infrastructure, etc.. Lets look at the U.S.. The U.S. can replace all gasoline and diesel fuel with biomass based fuels, that is, if you do it systematically. No long distance shipping of biomass or bio-fuels. Ideally, produce it regionally and consume it regionally (or even locally and locally). Start with biomass waste. We have forestry and agricultural residues, food processing waste, paper mill waste, building industry waste, municipal solid waste (landfills), sewage solids, and much more that is yet to be identified. If you count all these, we now have available roughly (A) 1 Billion tons of biomass waste… Biomass crops are the next category. Hypothetically, if you plant 90 million acres (same size as 2007 corn crop) of marginal land with drought resistant, low maintenance biomass crops such as sweet and biomass super sorghum, tropical maize, and miscanthus, etc., you would get 25 tons per acre per year or another (B) 2.25 Billion tons of biomass… The third category is ALGAE which will be commercialized by 2012. Equip the following installations with 20 million acres of adjacent Algae farms: All fossil fuel and coal burning power plants, biomass burn power plants, ethanol refineries, feedlots, poultry farms and dairy farms, and any commercial facility emitting CO2. And you would generate an average of 150 dry tons per acre per year, which equals another (C) 3 Billion tons of biomass. (Algae can also be produced at sea on ocean going barges. You would flood the barge with seawater, seed it with algae, feed the algae, and harvest and extract the algae several times a day. So algae potential is easily much higher.) A+B+C adds up to 6.25 Billion tons of biomass – our conservative hypothetical potential by 2020. We now have second generation advanced processes capable of converting biomass into almost any type of fuel. So 6.25 Billion tons of biomass translates into 80 gallons of ethanol or bio-diesel per ton – Or 500 Billion gallons of bio-fuel from biomass per year. But in reality, about one third of the 6.25 Billion tons of biomass will be used in different ways – for making biogas or methane or for biomass burn power plants or for crude bio-oil or heating oil or hydrogen or whatever. So hypothetically, we can probably produce two thirds of 500 Billion gallons = 333 Billion gallons of bio-fuel per year. This should make us totally liquid fuel self-sufficient and blessed with cheap domestic ethanol and bio-diesel – since we are currently consuming 170 Billion gallons of gasoline and about 50 Billion gallons of diesel fuel per year (2006-2007). We would have a fuel surplus… Or we could take our surplus and co-fire biomass in coal burning power plants - like they are already doing in Europe. Now throw in a few wild cards: (1) By 2012, plug-in hybrids will get you to and from work all week without using any liquid fuel; (2) By 2011, solar panels will be less than half the cost; and (3) By 2015 they will be printed out on your personal ink jet printer. Can we produce enough biomass to replace gasoline and diesel fuel with bio-fuels – absolutely!

Economy of scale hurts the economics of biomass. Adding biomass to other processes, that economy can be achieved. Unfortunately, many are against adding biomass to a coal plant because they are against coal under any circumstances.

Greyflcn, as I said before, the issue of theoretical efficiency sometimes has to take a backseat to real world considerations. Regular IC cars require liquid fuels and unless you want to seriously disrupt the economy, it will take a good twenty years for PHEV's/EV's to replace most IC vehicles. The role of biofuels, at least in my opinion, should be to augment conventional fuel supplies during the next couple of decades. The central issue is not about totally replacing oil, but instead it's about augmenting the supply of liquid fuels at the pump and moderating the EFFECT of rising oil prices. If biofuels can do this effectively, then they have a role to play in the near term.

The highest bio-energy yield I've seen is about 500 GJ per hectare in central Italy. The total annual irradiation there is usually 55,000 to 65,000 GJ per hectare.

Such high yields would be almost impossible to retain macro-economically.

1% (solar to chemical) land efficiency seems way too generous already, even for the best case, highest yield terrestrial bio-energy crops.

Algae are still the holy grail. But don't put too much hope in algae as a major bio-energy contributor any year soon. Technical problems aside, it's just too expensive right now.

Comparing direct solar energy with bio-energy only on terms of land efficiency is rather useless though, as Joe points out.

Besides, bio-energy and direct solar can complement each other very well. Biofuels make great sense in the right context. In the distant future, maybe we'll just use completely synthetic fuels. Who knows?

averagejoe: Augmenting oil with biofuel ? Who do you kidding ?
Not only 20 years, 200 years will not be enough to produce noticable effect.

There are ways to substantially reduce oil consumption now, without any biofuels. More than 80% of all US daily traffic is within 50 miles. This range is already within reach of EV. And adding small ICE, not directly turning the wheels, but for replenishing battery - easily makes that range into 300-400 miles.
A year ago some british company did just this with Mini.
And they had a great range (> 500 miles) and greate mileage, > 80 mpg. And this is on long distance of course. On distances less than 50 miles their car did not consume gas at all.
And ICE in that car, being small, is very efficient (>80%) as opposed to huge ICE engines that deliver torque to the wheels on conventional cars.

So there you go. Augment oil with battery and get dramatic reduction in oil usage, that will cover not only next 20 years but much much more.

Now question, why are we not detaching ICE from wheels and not letting electric engine to do the work ?
You do not need huge battery for that. What we have now, with ICE backing it, is enough.

Our agricultural practices for food have themselves created huge ecological problems. Without considering the fact that using land for biofuels will compete with food production, to add more land use to produce fuel to drive ICE is definitely going to make things worse.
I agree totally with GreyFlcn.
I think we will still need to use ICE for a while, but only for extending the range of electric or compressed air vehicles. Only until we get the range and power supply worked out to make them practical on their own.
The wasted energy in the form of heat put out by ICE's is perfectly used to boost air expantion in compressed air vehicles. Also braking can be done with air compressors/motors mounted directly on the wheels.

Verdi, you are still missing the point. In the U.S. alone, there are over 240 million automobiles. It will take a certain amount of time to replace them with PHEV's and EV's. Sure, there are a few small companies making a limited number of EV's and PHEV's, but the capacity for mass production is just not there yet. Toyota and GM won't be selling their PHEV's until about 2010. For the sake of argument,let's say that we wave a magic wand and five years from now, every vehicle sold in the U.S. is a PHEV/EV. In an average year, 7.5 million cars are sold in the U.S. At that pace, it would take 16 years for PHEV/EV's to replace half of the cars currently in the U.S. Let's see, 5 + 16 = 21 years.

Even if the price of gas spiked to $10 per gallon (thereby torpedoing the economy), that would only create the motivation to switch to EV's, not the short term ability (since not enough EV's would exist yet). The only way that I know to speed things up is to retrofit regular cars with PHEV ability... and that takes money. Not everyone has the desire or the ability to pony up several thousand dollars for an immediate retrofit. Even worse, the retrofit kits themselves are not being mass produced yet.

Amsterdamned, I do not know where 'here' is but most of the United States is a beautiful rural areas with huge amounts of biomass not being used for anything. I know from work done in the EU that there is economic potential for biomass fuels when oil is above $45/barrel and natural gas is above $3/MBTU.

Thanks to the 2005 energy bill, a large number of distributed facilitates are being built to process the biomass to fuel. The US has very strong environmental regulations so the new biofuels plants will be cleaner than existing oil refineries. Biofuels plants get a production tax credit (PTC) capped at $2.5M per plant. I do not consider a subsidy when paying less taxes for producing a higher cost commodity that benefits all taxpayers. Furthermore, last year farmers were not paid a subsidy for growing corn.

So far I am not finding anything not to like about biofuel development in the US other than it is coming 10 years later than is should have judging from the EU experience.

No thanks, we have enough useless politicians messing things up over here. I don't fancy being ruled by a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. It's bad enough that Bush wants to force that NAU foolishness down our throats.

Beware of the Hidden Costs of Imported Oil...Regarding subsidies, whoever blends the ethanol with gasoline gets the 51 cent per gallon subsidy, not farmers and not producers. Besides, every gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel you buy is heavily subsidized, even while oil companies make record breaking multi-billion dollar profits. The subsidies we pay on OIL BASED fuel is six times higher than what we pay on ethanol and bio-diesel. Sixty percent of our gasoline and diesel fuel is made from imported foreign oil, which we pay for mostly with IOUs. The interest we pay on our 9 Trillion Dollar National Debt, to the privately owned Federal Reserve Corporation (collected by the IRS) is for deficit spending and for our $800 Billion Annual Trade Deficit. This debt is accumulating at a rate we cannot sustain. The U.S. runs a trade deficit with oil producing countries. Since our money is backed by NOTHING, we pay for deficit foreign oil with IOUs, and they trade them for American stocks, real estate, and Government Bonds, which we pay interest on. Americans go into debt to buy foreign oil. When you buy gasoline or diesel fuel, there is a HIDDEN COST. When tax time comes around, you will also pay floating interest on up to 60 percent of the fuel you bought – on the portion that was made from imported oil and paid for with a debt instrument. An increasing proportion of your tax dollars are going toward paying floating interest, as we go deeper and deeper into debt to buy foreign oil with government bonds. Buy E-85, and you are paying floating interest on only 9% or less imported oil. Buy 100 percent domestically produced bio-diesel or pure ethanol, and pay zero interest. Eliminate foreign oil entirely, and you will pay no more floating interest on new fuel. Besides reducing Debt Consumption, there are other good reasons to support domestic bio-fuels. We would be in a recession if it wasn’t for the money being invested in alternative energy and the thriving bio-fuels industry. Subsidizing ethanol and bio-diesel creates jobs, stimulates our economy, and generates County, State, and Federal tax revenue. Money back in your pocket. Do the math. We are now spending roughly $250 Billion a year to protect our oil interests abroad. Add that to the price of gasoline, diesel fuel, and your airline ticket. Would you rather pay a price fixing Cartel and hostile foreign governments for your fuel? Or would you prefer to support the American Farmers who feed you? Nobody expects corn ethanol to be our savior. It’s only a stepping stone to something bigger and better. There are alternative feedstocks being developed that yield 3 to 4 times more fuel per acre than corn, on much less water, fertilizer, and input. We have hundreds of millions of vehicles on the road that require liquid fuel, and they will still be around for years to come, even after plug-in hybrids are introduced. Biomass has a dual role. It can be used to make bio-fuel or used to co-generate electricity and heat. The biomass industry is evolving rapidly and will play an important role in our transition to energy independence.

Let me summarize what JB wrote. Farmers are no longer getting money from the government for growing corn and may even being paying more taxes. Ethanol producers are paying income and property taxes although it may be at a lower rate for the first 10 years of operations.

I know from work done in the EU that there is economic potential for biomass fuels when oil is above $45/barrel and natural gas is above $3/MBTU.

There is a difference between economic potential and energetical potential. No doubt biofuels are often an excellent investment, but the total system inefficiency of biofuels could cause some very serious eventualities if biofuels are pushed too hard.

This is a strong counterargument to Joe's position. If biofuels are to protect against rising oil prices, then a lot of biofuels need to be produced, and in a very short timeframe. Kit P asserts that a lot of waste biomass isn't being used for anything. This could be turned into liquid fuels with FT but it's inefficient. TDP or cellulosic could be used but are not yet fully commercialized so are not valid for the argument.

History has shown that dedicated crops are being used for biofuels, thus displacing arable land which could be used for other purposes, in particular food crops. It's happening everywhere in the world, not just in the united states, and it's putting pressure on agrifood markets worldwide. And it's happening precisely because it's a good investment. At current levels of biofuel production, this may be acceptable, but it is an open question how far biofuels can really be pushed with respect to agrifood prices. Considering how much more biofuel will be needed for Joe's price hedge strategy, the effects on agrifood markets will not be trivial.

I do not believe that using current generation biofuels to fuel a large part of current generation ICEVs is entirely a good idea. Do you really want to replace foreign oil prices and availability dependency with a new dependency on foreign food price and availability?

In the right context, biofuels can be invaluable. This context pretty much doesn't exist now so biofuels are rather a minor short term solution. Sure, biofuels can be used in existing vehicles with little or no modification. That doesn't mean it's going to be a short term savior.

(I do not consider <20% of current liquid fuel usage a savior as it's not enough to seriously counter rising oil prices or dependency on it)

It should be noted that trying to obtain such high average yields per hectare is not likely to be very sustainable in terms of soil conditions, nor is it even likely to be possible on a large scale in a short timeframe.

"Do you really want to replace foreign oil prices and availability dependency with a new dependency on foreign food price and availability?"

I'm okay with that... seeing as how the U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of grain production. In fact, I just got back from the grocery store... didn't see any shortages or exorbitant prices. Besides, cellulosic and pyrolysis based biofuels will be ramping up production over the next five years anyway.

Another point that I'd like to make, AGAIN, is that real world considerations sometimes outweigh theoretical efficiency. Ever hear the old saying: "The enemy of the Good is the Perfect"? If efficiency is the only consideration, why have we been driving inefficient internal combustion vehicles for the last hundred years?... Because they are USEFUL. By the same token, if biofuels prove useful over the next 20-30 years, then they will be used. Whether biofuels can effectively moderate the "pain at the pump" over the next 25 years... that's an open question. Personally, I would like to see that option be given a fair chance. Given the high likelihood that PHEV's and EV's will take a good twenty years to make inroads, I'd like to have a plan B in the meantime.

Message for Amsterdamned: You used 20 tons per hectare. That is incorrect. It should be 20 tons per ACRE. There are 2.471 acres in a hectare. Actual field tests on Miscanthus consistently yield 20 tons per ACRE, and can go as high as 30 tons per acre per year. Biomass Sorghum is another good one. Texas A and M is claiming 20 to 25 tons per acre per year on their biomass sorghum. The warmer the climate where it is grown, the more cuttings you get from one planting. In upstate NY, for example, you might get 1 or 2 cuttings per year, but in India, they get 3 to 4 cuttings in one year. India has a variety of sweet sorghum that produces 44 tons per acre. TX A+M also has a sweet sorghum that you squeeze like the tropical maize mentioned in the above article. Then you get to make more fuel out of the fiber with whatever process is the best. And there are numerous different processes. Some of them don’t use enzymes. With all the scientific research being done, the evolution of the biomass / biofuels industry has become very sophisticated, complex, and multifaceted. It would take someone who has read hundreds of reports to accurately describe it.

Ty you are correct. Biomass to energy is a very complex issue that is difficult to explain. Ten years ago our choices for alternate energy focused on wind, solar, and F-T using natural gas. Explaining a solar panels in the desert can be done with a grade school education.

Explaining forest health issues in our vast semi-arid is a bit harder. While the problem is incredible large (too big for the human mind to comprehend) there were may technical solutions and many more now. Enemy number one was the legal arm of the Sierra Club and groups like. These lawyers pour out of the cites and to drag anyone trying to fix a small corner of the problem into the ninth circus. Nimbyism was not the problem. Local environmental activist were very excited. The problem is big city get richism.

If efficiency is the only consideration, why have we been driving inefficient internal combustion vehicles for the last hundred years?... Because they are USEFUL.

This was only allowed because there has usually been PLENTY of cheap oil to go around. As you mentioned, prices are likely to escalate. There isn't a lot of biofuel available. Because of inefficiency. So biofuels won't provide that much of a hedge against rising oil prices.

I just got back from the grocery store... didn't see any shortages or exorbitant prices.

Um, Joe, US biofuels currently have a share of less than 5% of US liquid fuel consumption.

You seem to be under the impression that efficiency doesn't matter on the short term. Efficiency always matters, short or long term. And for biofuels, it's critical as it is so pathetically inefficient that insane amounts of land need to be dedicated to produce serious amounts of biofuels, thus displacing large amounts of agrifood production.

Given the high likelihood that PHEV's and EV's will take a good twenty years to make inroads, I'd like to have a plan B in the meantime.

Your plan B is only a 10-20% solution at best. Where's the rest of your plan B?

Total Efficiency = +3332.99999%

The proper method for evaluating different choices is a LCA not efficiency.

No, Kit P, evaluating different choices requires a thorough understanding of thermodynamics to begin with. And deriving numbers from actual data, not drawing them from thin air. If you want to bust the 2nd law please do it on another site. Thank you.

Um... here's a newsflash for you, Amsterdamned... biofuels don't have to be made from corn or from crops grown on prime agricultural land. By consistently trying to frame the discussion only in terms of corn based biofuels, you are being more than a little disingenuous. Cellulosic and pyrolysis based biofuel plants are being built in the U.S., right now. Feedstock materials for these processes can be: non-food agricultural waste, wood chips, native prairie grasses, waste paper, animal waste streams, human waste streams, bioreactor based algae, etc.

If biofuels can displace 25% of U.S. transportation fuel usage, don't you think that would have a significant hedge effect against rising oil prices? If said biofuels can be produced with a positive net energy balance and at a cheaper price than fossil fuel based gasoline, then they will be useful by real world standards. Your obsession with theoretical efficiency is starting to border on anal retentiveness. Shall we stop all use of solar panels because the typical panel currently has an efficiency of less than twenty percent? Some people might characterize that as "pathetically inefficient", to borrow your phrase.

While not ideal, even the 1st generation of biofuels, corn ethanol, is not as inefficient as you would like to believe. Corn ethanol production produces distiller's grain as a co-product, a co-product that is used as animal feed.

Pyrolysis biofuels produce biochar (charcoal) as a co-product. Biochar can be used as a soil amendment to improve fertility, improve soil structure, reduce the need for conventional fertilizers, reduce the level of "greenhouse" gases emitted from cropland, and as a long term method to sequester atmospheric carbon. Given the current trend towards global warming hysteria, biochar might also be valuable as "carbon credits" if a system of carbon credit trading ever gets implemented. As far as plan B's go, I have yet to hear a better one from you...

Here's another useful tidbit for our resident skeptic, Amsterdamned. It deals with a company producing biofuels and electricity from municipal waste that would otherwise end up in landfills:

"A Plasma Converter and gas purifier system from Startech Environmental can produce ~43 liters of hydrogen for each kilogram of municipal trash with a net surplus of energy. New York City exports ~5.5 million kg (12,000 tons) of trash a day..."

"According to the New York City municipal budget, for example, the City spends ~$300 million per year to transport ~12,500 tons of municipal waste a day to distant sites "

"a very conservative estimate is that the daily trash output of NYC could fuel more than 300,000 vehicles a day traveling several hundred kilometers each..."

http://synthesis.typepad.com/synthesis/2006/09/geoplasma_and_p.html

The fellow writing the article focused on hydrogen production, but the syngas produced by the process can also be used as feedstock to produce ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, electricity, etc.

This is just the waste for one day from one large city. A biofuel plant using this business model could generate revenue from at least three different income streams: disposing of municipal waste, generating electricity, and producing biofuels.

Um... here's a newsflash for you, Amsterdamned... biofuels don't have to be made from corn or from crops grown on prime agricultural land.

Joe you misunderstood me. Corn ethanol is stupid but as a transitional technology it will do. Using waste biomass and muncipal waste etc. to make useful products such as biofuels is a win-win. Of course it should be done. TDP might be especially well suited for the job. I'm definately a proponent of this sort of biofuels production, and if that's 25% then that is excellent. It's significant, but not sufficient though.

Your plan B is still incomplete.

If you really want a create a sufficient hedge against high oil prices, then a bigger part of the solution lies in the oil itself. Current high oil prices aren't just resource-based, it's also largely corporate strategy. Oil companies know that easy oil production is in the evening of it's life. Switching to unconventional oil, new resource exploration, EOR etc. is risky in general, and they don't want to rush it and find they've made bad investments on a massive scale. Better make more money from the same production now with less risk. You can't blame them, it's a business.

But the production from alternative oil can be quickened by government incentive, such as streamlining new production facilities, refineries etc siting and construction. And providing financial loan guarantees (although I doubt most big oil companies would need it really) might also speed things up.

I would be very careful with large amounts of dedicated biofuel crops. We have 6.7 billion mouths to feed, soon 7 billion, then 8 billion, 9 billion if the predictions are correct.

Here's a newsflash for you Joe: biofuels are one of the primary causes of large rises in food prices, and they're only just replacing a small portion of all liquid fuels. If I recall, about one-third of corn in the United States is already being used for bio-ethanol production. And it's just a small portion of liquid fuels.

Don't worry Joe. You are not likely to suffer much, you can probably afford to pay a few bucks more in your bakery store.

It's the poor that will suffer. We're talking about at least hundreds of millions of people worldwide that can't afford to pay 50% more for their food.

Your obsession with theoretical efficiency is starting to border on anal retentiveness.

Your assertion that efficiency is theoretical is wrong in the first place which explains your failure to understand the issue.

Do you think ICEV's would have proliferated like they have if they were 0.5% efficient rather than 10-25%? No of course not, there isn't enough oil on this planet for that. A 0.5% efficient ICEV would cost a fortune in fuel costs to drive even during the inexpensive oil period. If only biofuels were 10% efficient overall!

Efficiency isn't theoretical. It's practical, financial, real world issues. The Miscanthus stuff already uses the highest efficiency bioconversion currently available. Algae could really make up a lot here, it's an exciting development but not anywhere near market ready on a large scale.

TDP would considerably increase the yield. Cellulosic is also more efficient but ethanol itself isn't (yet).

By consistently trying to frame the discussion only in terms of corn based biofuels, you are being more than a little disingenuous.

Indeed? I was under the impression that most of my writing before this post was about high yield Miscanthus with fisher tropsch diesel conversion borrowed from another post.

Pyrolysis biofuels produce biochar (charcoal) as a co-product. Biochar can be used as a soil amendment to improve fertility, improve soil structure, reduce the need for conventional fertilizers, reduce the level of "greenhouse" gases emitted from cropland, and as a long term method to sequester atmospheric carbon.

Biochar for food crops looks like an excellent idea. For biofuels? Not so sure. We'll see how it works out.

I'm definately not a skeptic as in "it doesn't work". Mostly, I doubt the ethics of dedicated crops for large amounts of biofuel production.

Amsterdamned wrote, “No, Kit P, evaluating different choices requires a thorough understanding of thermodynamics to begin with. And deriving numbers from actual data, not drawing them from thin air. If you want to bust the 2nd law please do it on another site. Thank you.”

Amsterdamned would you take your incorrect application of thermodynamics some place else. Site specific LCA per ISO 14000 should be used to the best environmental choices because it takes into account multiple benefits (food, fiber, energy) and multiple environmental impacts (water, air, sustainability).

When considering land use for energy production, the best choice may may be solar in the Mohave Desert, windmills located on dry land wheat fields, and corn where they grow surplus corn because it rains a lot. Thermodynamics are not needed yet.

Before any good engineer whips out their steam tables, a careful definition of the problem must be established. We use energy when and where we need it. If you need energy between 10 & 2, live in the desert, then maybe solar is something to consider.

In this case we need to fuel our cars in rural areas of America where corn is being grown to feed to pigs. Can we process out some of the energy from the corn, store it, and transport the energy to be used? With the problem properly, energy foundries can be identified allowing Amsterdamned to use his thermodynamics to figure how efficient the ethanol plant is.

Except I do not really care about EROI, if we use coal to make a transportation fuel when I need it how is that any different than petroleum?

Is maize better than corn in Illinois? It sounds like a reasonable thing to study in Illinois, but if the folks from the EU and California would like to try to explain again why they should study something else, I am listening.

Site specific LCA per ISO 14000 should be used to the best environmental choices because it takes into account multiple benefits (food, fiber, energy) and multiple environmental impacts (water, air, sustainability).

Then use that LCA and don't make up figures like 3000% and make it sound like it's about energy efficiency. If that figure actually does come from the LCA then the LCA is little more than a bedside story.

Moreover, LCA does not dictate resource, and resource is important for energy potential.

Thermodynamics are not needed yet.

You know you really have to be careful with this shouting silly statement habit thing you have. It doesn't make you look very intelligent, and people won't take you serious.

In this case we need to fuel our cars in rural areas of America where corn is being grown to feed to pigs. Can we process out some of the energy from the corn, store it, and transport the energy to be used?

Perhaps then you'd have to eat less pig and eat corn instead?

Is maize better than corn in Illinois? It sounds like a reasonable thing to study in Illinois, but if the folks from the EU and California would like to try to explain again why they should study something else, I am listening.

How about finding ways to produce biofuels that don't compete with food crops at all?

In case you still don't understand why efficiency matters, in particular for dedicated biofuel crops: inefficiency combined with very high liquid fuel demand means large amounts of arable land needed for dedicated biofuel crops, thus displacing large amounts of arable land for food crops, which lowers worldwide food production. More people. less food. It's already happening now, with just ~1% biofuels worldwide. Worse, the liquid fuels market is likely to continue to grow rapidly, as Greyfalcon pointed out the miles driven is projected to rise substantially. Incremental improvements in ICEV's mileage cannot negate this, especially worldwide so there will be a significant increase in liquid fuels demand.

"I was under the impression that most of my writing before this post was about high yield Miscanthus with fisher tropsch diesel conversion…"

SOME of your posts have dealt with Miscanthus, but you still persist in indulging in the Food vs. Fuel paradigm as if it will always be the case. Corn ethanol is a self limiting source of biofuels. When corn prices rise too much it becomes unprofitable to produce corn ethanol. You also neglected to consider that market forces will also stimulate an increase in worldwide grain production. Farmers in foreign countries can now get a better price for grain crops and will increase production, with some of that increase going to feed people.

By the way, Miscanthus is not the most efficient crop per acre. The University of Minnesota did a ten year study with mixed native prairie plants as a source of biofuels. It found that an acre of mixed prairie “grasses” returned 238% more energy than monocrops, even Miscanthus. A mixed prairie “grass” crop is a perennial crop, meaning that it can be planted once and harvested ANNUALLY for at least ten years thereafter. Miscanthus needs three years to grow to harvest size. A mixed prairie plant crop is an example of a Dedicated crop that: doesn’t need much fertilizer (none after first year), doesn’t need irrigation, is carbon negative ( potential for carbon credit revenue), and that can be grown on land not suitable for food crops… thereby not displacing food production. http://www.physorg.com/preview84737765.html

Dealing with the topic of efficiency… you still don’t understand how the real world works. Modern civilization places a premium on transportation fuels because we’ve locked ourselves into using the internal combustion engine, at least until PHEV’s and EV’s take over. I’m not a fan of IC vehicles, but we will need fuel for them for at least the next 20-30 years. If a set of technologies, biofuels, can be efficient ENOUGH to serve as a hedge for that time period, then they have a place. Because biofuels (ethanol, butanol, etc.) can be blended in with REFINED transportation fuels, they can have a disproportionately large impact in moderating retail gas prices. As you yourself said, the big oil companies are loath to invest in new refineries. Biofuels can help offset the shortage of refinery capacity. Personally, if I could dictate policy to the big oil companies, I would just implement a coal to liquids program for the next thirty years. Sadly, they don't hang on my every word...

As plan B’s go, biofuels have a lot to offer. As the technologies advance, the impact on food production will lessen. In the mean time, if countries in the developing world, like Mozambique, can contemplate growing large biofuel crops, then they also have the capacity to grow larger food crops. Despite the current administration’s policy of intervention, the United States is not the world’s policeman or priest. Every country needs to make its own decisions about how to best allocate its resources.

Where? Not in the US. The price of petroleum has retarded biofuels in the past. Furthermore, there is a huge surplus of both arable land and corn in the US. The amount of ethanol produced has doubled in the US in the last 3 years.

Amst: You stated that one third of the US corn crop went to ethanol. That is incorrect. Last year, less than 20% of the entire corn crop was processed into ethanol, and half of that came out as oil rich, high protein distiller’s grains, a valuable livestock feed bi-product – used to produce food. Only 10% by weight of the entire corn crop went directly to ethanol. This year, the US corn crop is 15% larger, and 25% of the crop will be processed into ethanol, again with half of that coming out as distiller’s grains. You make a broad over-generalized statement that ethanol is inefficient. The efficiency of corn ethanol varies from one farm to the next and from one refinery to the next. For example, some farmers are making their own biodiesel, blending ethanol into their fuels, and pumping water with solar panels. One day, you may see farmers using plug-in hybrid electric tractors with solar canopies and Cyclone Power Technologies Inc. biomass-biofuel engines. Ethanol refineries are now replacing natural gas with biomass burn co-generation plants and using waste heat to distill the ethanol. Some plants are installing windmills and solar concentrators to supplement production power. Even the first generation ethanol industry is evolving. Be sure to take a look at XL Dairy Group Inc. – their bio-refinery in Vicksburg AZ. This is a 2,300 acre dairy farm that fractionates corn, produces ethanol from the starch, extracts the corn oil to produce biodiesel, feeds the high protein distillers grains bi-product to 7,500 dairy cows, produces milk from them, and converts the cow manure to production power. This state of the art plant is totally self-powered and disconnected from the grid. Their intent is to develop algae to replace the corn, and convert the algae to biodiesel, ethanol, and feed for the cows. This facility cost $400 million US to build, and generates $180 million per year in revenue – not your typical ethanol plant - but a model for what’s to come. The evolution of biofuels involves integrating biorefineries with dairy farms, poultry farms, feedlots, biomass co-generation plants, and algae installations. Replacing 25% to 100% of all liquid fossil fuels with biofuels is possible with advanced technology and logistics. This is seen in the context of plug-in hybrids reducing demand for liquid fuels, the price of solar cut in half or more, coal burning power plants being supplemented by biomass and algae pellets, wave emerging as cost effective, cellulose ethanol and algae becoming commercially viable, advanced biomass feedstocks and refining processes, localization of production and consumption of biofuels, and the internal combustion engine eventually being replaced by (1) direct flexi - fuel cells (Acumentrics); (2) flexi-fueled Cyclone Green Revolution Engines; (3) and Next generation battery and ultra-capacitor powered long range electric vehicles.

JB thanks for the information, here is a link:
http://xldairygroup.com/pressrelease.cfm?ContentKey=610

It is another one of those 3000% efficiency things that Amsterdamned does not understand. How much energy does it take to produce milk? Dairy farms use lots of electricity and propane and only use a fraction of the nutrients in the manure?

How much energy is needed to produce milk, ethanol, electricity, and compost? Zero!!! Free stall barns with flushing captures all the nutrients. Producing compost archives a 100% reduction in the amount of ammonia needed to grow corn using nutrients that was previously pollution. Biogas produced is used to power the ethanol plant and dairy.

It is not magic, it is called Industrial Ecology (IE). There are countless symbolic relationships in nature, there is no reason man can not imitate a few.

For those who want to calculate the efficiency of sun to wheels, enjoy being stuck in the past. Please tell us all about the limitation of energy to provide a a quality lifestyle. What I see is the ability of the US to provide starving children cheese when drought strikes.

Verdi, like all of us humans, is simply behaving in the way that humans do. We absorb a variety of inputs, and then we develop a personal view/agenda of the subject at hand. We support our personal view with references to the statements and writings of other humans who agree with us, while ignoring and rejecting the statements and writings of other humans who disagree with us (total bozos).

For Verdi’s view of “ethanol energy inefficiency”, there is a large body of alternative research which suggests that he is wrong. And much of that research has been publicly available for a decade or two. Here is one such example from 1995:

But this entire argument entirely misses the mark The people who run our country are promoting the creation of an ethanol infrastructure for a simple and obvious reason: they must be prepared for the possibility that crude oil supplies might suddenly be withheld from the American market. The government, particularly the Defense Department, is a massive consumer of gasoline and diesel. There must be an alternative transportation fuel available to them. What is that fuel? For now, there is only one answer: ethanol.

the only problem about that is the price of the food in the world is raising too fast. Apparently what seems to be very good to the nature because of the emissions is turning to something really bad for poverty.